Monday, February 25, 2013

The Death of Albino Rhino

Who killed the Albino Rhino? Or more precisely, what caused Earls restaurant to rename its iconic brand of beer it had been selling for the past 25 years? Apparently, Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant with albinism from Nigeria living in Vancouver stated that offering a beverage named "Albino Rhino" was offensive to her and no different than selling an "Alzheimer's appetizer" or "Down syndrome daiquiri". Except for the glaring difference that the beer is named after the rare animal (it even has one on the label), not after a human condition.


After trying to persuade Earls to change the name through informal discourse got her nowhere, Ero filed a complaint with the malevolent makework project known as the British Columbian Human Rights Commission. Not looking for a protracted, costly legal battle, the popular Canadian restaurant changed the name of the pale ale to simply "Rhino".

I can't say that I know any albinos -- the rare condition affects only 1 in every 20 000 -- but I have read several blogs from those with albinism praising the change.

Most seemed to try and counter the conservative chorus of disapproval on the name change by detailing how much abuse, ridicule, and discrimination albinos go through. I'm sure all of this is true. I won't doubt it for a second, but how is this beer name responsible for that? And how is forcing the name change going to make these problems go away? You cannot politically correct ignorance.

Some others took the time to explain that "boycotts" of Earls would not work because so few people are affected with albinism that a protest would lack "critical mass". Of course, that's only true if you're unable to attract any sympathizers from the rest of the population, which should be easy if others agreed with it. Evidently, that's not the case here, so what's that say?

A few even pointed out that albinos in Africa are targets of "ritualistic murder". Terrible indeed, so maybe your course of action to bring about change should be focused there?

We're beyond the point of no return when one offended person can force a business to spend tens of thousands of dollars opposing a measure designed to bring about a change that the overwhelming majority disagrees with. I'm sure the days are numbered for horticulturalists selling dwarf spruce trees, executors of blind trusts, and directors presiding over midget hockey. And Christmas? Give up on that illusion. It won't stand a chance.

More than a brand of beer died when Earls changed a name. We've fallen into a pit of quicksand by trying to appease anyone who has ever been offended; it's choking us now.

May we rest in peace.